There is no denying that Churchill was a great statesman. A great Englishman that put the interest of his country first and managed to lead it through treacherous times. It’s been fifty years since he passed and many are celebrating his legacy today. Mainly by quotes cheering his genius , wittiness, and intelligence. However, legacies tend to always the bright side of someone or something. This is very true in Churchill’s case. While s a principled man, he had interesting beliefs towards other races. His other quotes that often to make mainstream social media are considered, by today’s standards, “negative.” Take this one for example:
“I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”
Now take the mentality that generated such quote and place it in a different sociopolitical and economic context than that of the British Empire. Let’s choose, for the sake of argument, Germany in the first half of the Twentieth century.
Imagine a politician seeing his country’s economy in shambles, its national sentiment humiliated, and its political elite weak and untrusted. Everyone’s unhappy with the status quo but he sees opportunity with populist politics. He attempts to elevate the hopes and dreams of his constituents by presenting an alternative narrative of a once great German civilization. Holding parties responsible for his country’s situation would come with the territory. Since the crisis is primarily economic, he would attack the banking system. A politician with the excellent statesmanship and racist mentality of Churchill’s would’ve probably managed to hold a certain group accountable as well to help him create a domestic threat more quantifiable for the masses. From there I leave it to your imagination and excellent deductive skills to figure out what would Churchill would do if he was German.
Glorifying dead politicians in the west is a dishonest and ugly business. The narrative that liberal values have been carried out generation after generation is always propagated and implied. No matter what the person has done, if he preserved his country’s national interest he is a hero for his society. A society always in need of hero figures to keep it glued together by absurd nationalism.
This unethical business of consent manufacturing relies on two pillars: the short memory of humans and propaganda. Take Belgium for example, They still have a nice statute of King Leopold II in Brussels. Leopold II, if you didn’t know, this fine chap was responsible of a genocide of around ten million Congolese during the colonization period. On a side note, Brussels is also the capital of the European Union. Oh and before I forget, Churchill’s policies in India also killed Millions, just in case you were wondering if Churchill is capable of killing en masse!
In examining such surreal landscape of hypocrisy and lying, one cannot but resort to some irony and satire to make it more tolerable. It is true what they say that the winner writes history, but with having terabytes of memory disks and a backspace button nowadays, how on earth is it still happening?!!